The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge (12 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
The courts have never ever written a single law one in the entire history of this country ... laws are written by people, and those people are called "legislators".

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.

Why am I not surprised?
JoeJoe
View Profile
Inner circle
Myrtle Beach
1910 Posts

Profile of JoeJoe
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
The courts have never ever written a single law one in the entire history of this country ... laws are written by people, and those people are called "legislators".

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.

Why am I not surprised?


https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestio......ual_law/



-JoeJoe
Amazing JoeJoe on YouTube[url=https://www.youtube.com/user/AmazingJoeJoe]
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4857 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
If you give someone a right to copy something, you still own the original copy. In order for them to have an exclusive, you would have to give them the actual something (the research) - not just the right to copy it.

No publisher claims to own "the research." They claim to own the submitted article about the research. If a researcher were to write a different article based on the same research, there would be no claim.

That said, the present situation is ridiculous, and not in the public or scientific interest. I'm not sure that it's even in the interest of commerce.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20290 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
The courts have never ever written a single law one in the entire history of this country ... laws are written by people, and those people are called "legislators".

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.

Why am I not surprised?


https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestio......ual_law/



-JoeJoe



He posted a link so he must be right.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
The courts have never ever written a single law one in the entire history of this country ... laws are written by people, and those people are called "legislators".

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.

Why am I not surprised?

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestio......ual_law/

Opinions in a chat room.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20290 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
But it's a link!
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 13, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
You are correct Magnus: Elsevier is profiting off the research they steal from the researchers.


This is nonsense. Researchers voluntarily submit papers for publication. Elsevier is one of many publishers. There are also an increasing number of "open access" journals.

I don't like Elsevier, but they are not in any way stealing research.

Quote:
the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.




To put it another way, imagine if you wanted to make a DVD of your magic act ... and the only way to do so way to pay Elsevier to "publish" your DVD ... and after you pay them to "publish" your DVD, they keep all the profits they make selling it.

So who is stealing from whom??

-JoeJoe


Again, researchers voluntarily submit papers where they choose to do so. There is no coercion.

1. Almost all academic research is done by people who are paid to research. Why should they expect to get paid a second time for the research they were paid to do?

2. Most research (in the West, at least) is funded by grants. When the researcher applies for the grant, publication and conference publication are among the "deliverables" the researcher promises.

While funders could stipulate open source publication or some such, they don't.

Stealing from a company you don't like is still stealing. [/quote]


Sounds a lot like indentured servitude Smile
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20290 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Sound a lot more like if you want to play in their game you can't make up your own rules to play by.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27083 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Copyright assignment for the article as written is a question. Exclusive?
Aside from that:
The research logs, data, computational artifacts, correspondence... belong to whom?

Science as branded product?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4857 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
The research logs, data, computational artifacts, correspondence... belong to whom?

That's a whole new thread. But if you're game, go ahead.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20290 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I guess the question is who does the "work product" belong to? And I am fairly sure one person on this thread knows the answer to that better than anyone.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
0pus
View Profile
Inner circle
New Jersey
1739 Posts

Profile of 0pus
Unless the research was done under a "Work Made for Hire" arrangement, the research/work papers/other material is owned by the author. Rights in that material is not transferred with a transfer of rights in the paper itself to the publisher.

Traditionally, the author of a scientific paper selected for publication by a scientific journal was required to transfer rights governed by the copyright to the journal publisher. Usually this was an "all rights" transfer. The author was "paid" in several copies of the paper, but otherwise the author had no claim on the article.

In fact, the author can never use that paper again, in its current form. While the author is still nominally the copyright holder, he or she has no rights left to exploit. To resell that material, the author would have to create a substantially different version. In addition, the purchaser of "all rights" is free to reprint the author's material, sell it to other publications for reprinting, include it in an anthology, post it online, or sell it to some other agency, all without paying the author any additional compensation. And the authors granted "all rights" for a few paltry reprints of the paper because the publishers had them over a barrel: the authors were generally required to publish as a condition of their continued employment.

Publishers claimed this arrangement was necessary in order to "protect" authors' rights, and to coordinate permissions for reprints or other use.

Many authors, especially those active in the open access movement, found this unsatisfactory and have used their influence to effect a gradual move towards a license to publish instead. Under such a system, the publisher has permission to edit, print, and distribute the article commercially, but the authors retain the other rights themselves.

Even if they retain the copyright to an article, journals may allow certain rights to their authors. These rights usually include the ability to reuse parts of the paper in the author's future work, and allow the author to distribute a limited number of copies. The rise of open access journals, in which the author retains the copyright but must pay a publication charge, such as the Public Library of Science family of journals, is another recent response to copyright concerns.

[Much of this comes from Wikipedia, which I used as a convenient source for the text.]
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
So, Opus . . . it sounds as though under either system (copyright transfer or license to publish), the publisher owns more than the paper on which the article is printed.

Who'da thunk it?
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15958 Posts

Profile of tommy
Copyright[edit]
Traditionally, the author of an article was required to transfer the copyright to the journal publisher. Publishers claimed this was necessary in order to protect authors' rights, and to coordinate permissions for reprints or other use. However, many authors, especially those active in the open access movement, found this unsatisfactory,[8] and have used their influence to effect a gradual move towards a license to publish instead. Under such a system, the publisher has permission to edit, print, and distribute the article commercially, but the authors retain the other rights themselves.
Even if they retain the copyright to an article, most journals allow certain rights to their authors. These rights usually include the ability to reuse parts of the paper in the author's future work, and allow the author to distribute a limited number of copies. In the print format, such copies are called reprints; in the electronic format, they are called postprints. Some publishers, for example the American Physical Society, also grant the author the right to post and update the article on the author's or employer's website and on free e-print servers, to grant permission to others to use or reuse figures, and even to reprint the article as long as no fee is charged.[9] The rise of open access journals, in which the author retains the copyright but must pay a publication charge, such as the Public Library of Science family of journals, is another recent response to copyright concerns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27083 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Boil it down to tangibles / actions on the people level: Science as product?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
0pus
View Profile
Inner circle
New Jersey
1739 Posts

Profile of 0pus
The internet has had a disruptive effect on many things. The music industry has been impacted significantly, and I am not sure that that industry has completed its journey. Publishing has also been impacted; scientific publishing has its own issues.

Generally, the protections of copyright apply to the expression of ideas, but not the ideas themselves - the ideas themselves might be protected by other means (e.g., patents, trade secret law), but not through copyright. In fact, publishing ideas may well preclude other protections (e.g., general publication of an idea renders it no longer a trade "secret;" publication can also defeat the requirement of being "novel," an essential element of patentability).

Publication of scientific papers has served an important validation purpose in the past: such papers must survive an initial screening by a person with expertise in the area to determine whether it has merit and then must pass a peer review by several experts in the area. The cost of this is borne by the publisher, and so that publisher will want to obtain as extensive a set of rights in the material as possible; hence the requirement of the transfer of "all rights" in the material. The author, on the other hand, wants to put the material out to the community to spur acceptance and/or validation for the ideas the paper contains.

In the internet age, publishing is cheap, but there is no gatekeeper: any crackpot idea can be (and usually is) put out on the internet. There is no screening that had been performed by the publisher in the pre-internet days.

Nevertheless, the internet has promoted an abiding belief on the part of some that information should generally be "free," a belief that clashes significantly with the tenets of the pre-internet publishing industry.

We need to understand what the policies were behind the copyright and other IP laws, and consider whether they have validity in the post-internet world.

Note that scientific papers are similar to descriptions of magic effects. However, scientists seek to publicize the ideas/methods contained in their papers, while magicians seem to be trying to do precisely the opposite.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27083 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Information does not want to be free.


If someone else publishes a finding open source with better data...

Magic advertising or just poorly written method work without citations and discussion of prior art?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15958 Posts

Profile of tommy
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
JoeJoe
View Profile
Inner circle
Myrtle Beach
1910 Posts

Profile of JoeJoe
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.


The judicial branch can call their review process whatever they like, that doesn't make it "the law". The United States Code of Law is authored by the legislative branch and the most the judicial branch can really do is make the legislative branch re-write the law ... they themselves cannot actually change the words (nor can the president).

There is no copyright on it and it can be legally shared for free (even online):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/

Title seventeen covers copyrights, such as chapter two which states ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object, and chapter one that limits "exclusive rights" for reproduction by libraries and archives (ie: SciHub and LibGen).

Not that this is a copyright case - this is a theft case where a publishing company is trying to steal research from researchers ... as in, sending the original researcher a take-down notice on his own research ... which the publishing company does not own (they only have the right to copy that research).

-JoeJoe
Amazing JoeJoe on YouTube[url=https://www.youtube.com/user/AmazingJoeJoe]
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Feb 19, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.

The judicial branch can call their review process whatever they like, that doesn't make it "the law".

In fact, it does.

And why did you attribute my quote to Danny.

You're losing it, JoeJoe.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge (12 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.36 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL